The art did seem off to me, but it fits the style of some textbook diagrams. The number placement doesn’t seem like an error that an AI would make. I was unable to find any results in reverse image searches that were more than a few days old, so given the infamous piss filter on the image, I think the man and dog are AI generated but the text is lazily human placed (I cannot attest to the validity of the scientific claims but it also seems human written to me).
In my research, I looked up the Medinaz watermark on the image. This educational publisher claims that their diagrams are “hand-drawn” and I was unable to find any other images published by them that match this art style, and all of their pages do not match the visual design above. Their infographics also tend to be a bit more campy or silly. Most of their images, but not the text, also have a watermark for Medinaz (sometimes shortened to Naz). Here is an example that could stand on its own as a meme:
Further down the rabbit hole, I found a review accusing them of plagiarizing the text they published for First Aid. I also encountered a full pdf for their Cardiology book, which includes a page with a couple of copyrighted characters (The Queen of Hearts from Disney’s Alice in Wonderland, and Thomas the Tank Engine).
Does Medinaz’s track record for disregarding intellectual property indicate that they would be willing to substitute their human artists for AI generated images? Or could they have stolen the image from elsewhere and slapped their watermark on it and published it as their own? Or could a separate party have added Medinaz’s watermark onto an image that they didn’t publish to affront them somehow? If somebody can find a Medinaz book with this image in it, we may have an answer.
Thanks. I think that it’s important to be judicious when calling something AI generated because too many false positives will delegitimize true claims and further blur the lines of real and unreal content.
AI slop
The art did seem off to me, but it fits the style of some textbook diagrams. The number placement doesn’t seem like an error that an AI would make. I was unable to find any results in reverse image searches that were more than a few days old, so given the infamous piss filter on the image, I think the man and dog are AI generated but the text is lazily human placed (I cannot attest to the validity of the scientific claims but it also seems human written to me).
In my research, I looked up the Medinaz watermark on the image. This educational publisher claims that their diagrams are “hand-drawn” and I was unable to find any other images published by them that match this art style, and all of their pages do not match the visual design above. Their infographics also tend to be a bit more campy or silly. Most of their images, but not the text, also have a watermark for Medinaz (sometimes shortened to Naz). Here is an example that could stand on its own as a meme:
Further down the rabbit hole, I found a review accusing them of plagiarizing the text they published for First Aid. I also encountered a full pdf for their Cardiology book, which includes a page with a couple of copyrighted characters (The Queen of Hearts from Disney’s Alice in Wonderland, and Thomas the Tank Engine).
Does Medinaz’s track record for disregarding intellectual property indicate that they would be willing to substitute their human artists for AI generated images? Or could they have stolen the image from elsewhere and slapped their watermark on it and published it as their own? Or could a separate party have added Medinaz’s watermark onto an image that they didn’t publish to affront them somehow? If somebody can find a Medinaz book with this image in it, we may have an answer.
I just wanted to tell you that i appreciate that you spend your time on this.
Thanks. I think that it’s important to be judicious when calling something AI generated because too many false positives will delegitimize true claims and further blur the lines of real and unreal content.
Thank you, I really appreciate this take.